On Thu 2014-01-16T06:55:00 +0000, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ: > Poul-Henning Kamp said: > > What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove > > leap-seconds, and leave the "keep civil time in sync with the sun" > > up to local governments who can mess with their timezones as they > > see fit. > > Right. And of the proposals on the table, this is the one that seems to me > to be the most practical.
This notion leaves open the question of the name UTC. In particular, can the delegates to the ITU-R RA be persuaded to vote for a new version of TF.460 if they are aware that the new wording will change the legal definition of the word "day" in every country which has adopted UTC as its time scale? Will the delegates from other nations simply reject a proposal which is rooted in and strongly pushed by the military needs of the USA? Will the ITU-R even dare to allow such a risky vote that might result in their new recommendation being disregarded by countries which want to preserve the meaning of "day"? Or can the delegates only be persuaded to vote if the new TF.460 clearly explains the tradeoffs and chooses a new name? -- Steve Allen <[email protected]> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
